ORDER : V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J. 1. This revision filed by the State as well as the de facto complainant under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC arose out of the following circumstances. 2. Sri N.Ram Mohan Rao does business in the name and style of Rao & Murthy Plywoods at Sivalayam Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada. He has a son by name Sri N. Bala Chandan. Every day, Sri Ram Mohan Rao used to leave his house in the morning and do his business and returned home by about 9:15 pm in the night. On 28.09.2013 as usual, he went to the shop but did not return in the night. The son and family members enquired with the relations and friends but did not locate him. Therefore, they went to the Governorpet Police Station and the son lodged a written information at 11.00 am on 29.03.2013. This written information states that Sri Ram Mohan Rao was missing and prayed to search for him. The Sub- Inspector of Police of Governorpet Pollice Station registered it as FIR.No.335 of 2013 as a case of “missing person”. No penal provision is mentioned in it. 3. The de facto complainant in the said FIR is the son of the missing person. It is further seen from the records that this de facto complainant during morning hours on 30.09.2013 found bad smell coming from the southern side property of the neighbour’s house and found people talking to each other about a dead body. Then he and his family members went there and found from the dress worn by the dead body that it was the dead body of Sri Ram Mohan Rao. The son rushed to Governorpet Police Station and gave a detailed written information wherein he mentioned that he found the dead body with a plaster around the head thereby closing the face. He expressed his suspicion that unknown people should have taken him away and killed him and threw the dead body. He further disclosed his suspicion that with reference to some immovable property of them in Kankipadu, there were some disputes with certain people and therefore out of that or for the other reasons his father might have been murdered. The Inspector of Governorpet Police Station having received the information, at 9.00 am on 30.09.2013 altered the man missing FIR into and brought in Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Inspector of Governorpet Police Station having received the information, at 9.00 am on 30.09.2013 altered the man missing FIR into and brought in Sections 302 and 201 IPC. It seems on the point of jurisdiction, the records were transferred to Suryaraopet Police Station. The police duly conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the learned Magistrate which was thereafter committed to the court of sessions and it became S.C.No.14 of 2016. Learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada charged the accused and commenced the trial. The de facto complainant testified as PW.1. On 22.07.2019, prosecution examined him in chief in part. During this phase, the written information initially lodged by PW.1 and was registered as FIR as a case of “missing man” was marked as per Ex.P1. In his evidence, he spoke about missing of gold ornaments from the dead body of his father. It seems in the investigation, they were recovered and they were exhibited as MO.1 and MO.2. Further examination in chief was deferred to another day. The witness was tendered for continuation of evidence on 23.07.2019. During this phase of evidence, the wearing apparel of the deceased and two mobile phones were exhibited as MO.3 to MO6. It was at this stage, the facts relevant for the present revision have occurred. 4. Through PW.1, prosecution intended to exhibit the written information dated 30.09.2013 lodged by PW.1 to police. As one could see from the deposition form of this witness, the court on its own mention took an objection to mark this document as an exhibit for prosecution and refused to mark it. The reason recorded by the learned trial judge is that Ex.P1 was already marked. The proposed document is after it and therefore it was hit by sections 161 and 162 CrPC and therefore it could not be exhibited as evidence. 5. Aggrieved by that refusal, the prosecution preferred this revision. Though initially prosecution filed the revision, the de facto complainant also joined as revision petitioner No.2 by virtue of the orders of this court dated 07.11.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023. The respondent herein is the accused. 6. Heard arguments of Kumari Disha Chowdary, the learned APP for 1st revision petitioner being assisted by learned counsel, Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva and Sri Devalraju Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for respondent. 7. The respondent herein is the accused. 6. Heard arguments of Kumari Disha Chowdary, the learned APP for 1st revision petitioner being assisted by learned counsel, Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva and Sri Devalraju Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for respondent. 7. The only question that falls for consideration is: - “Did the trial judge commit grave error leading to miscarriage of Justice by refusing to admit in evidence information lodged by PW.1 with Police on the ground of Sections 161 and 162 CrPC?” POINT: - It is relevant to notice what is legislated in Section 154 CrPC, 1973 and the same is extracted below: - 154. Information in cognizable cases.—(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf: 1 [Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 2 [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer: Provided further that— (a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 1 [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be; (b) the recording of such information shall be video graphed; (c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.] (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1)shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence. A reading of the provision makes it clear that persons would come to police station and tender written information containing various facts and grievances. Going by the facts mentioned in that information, police would receive and record them in the relevant registers. If the written information received is one which contains allegations of commission of a cognizable offence, then in terms of section 154 CrPC, the Station House Officer shall enter this in a book prescribed by the State Government. 8. Keeping that principle in mind, one shall examine the written information dated 29.09.2013 lodged by PW.1 with the police. Apparently, the police had received it and registered the Crime No.335 of 2013 and issued FIR. The columns of this FIR require the police to mention the penal provisions and the relevant enactment under which the facts alleged were considered as disclosing cognizable offences. A perusal of this FIR shows that it is mentioned as “man missing”. Be it noted that the written information of the de facto complainant was merely disclosing missing of the father and prayer for search of him. It does not contain any hint of any crime being committed against missing man. It was a mere case of missing man. If police having considered it as a case of abduction or kidnap they would have mentioned a penal provision. They did not do it as the information did not disclose any crime. A man may be missing for various reasons but in the case at hand, there were no reasons decipherable for missing of such man. Therefore, police registered it as a mere case of man missing. It is the duty of the police machinery to help the citizenry and make due enquiries and trace the missing person. A man may be missing for various reasons but in the case at hand, there were no reasons decipherable for missing of such man. Therefore, police registered it as a mere case of man missing. It is the duty of the police machinery to help the citizenry and make due enquiries and trace the missing person. Be it noted, it is not even a case of allegation of any unnatural death or a dead body being found with anything suspicious on that by then. 9. However, as it seems that in man missing cases, some of the stations recorded it as one under section 174 CrPC and in some of the stations, it was registered as a man missing. What happens with a case of such nature when registered is that the police would make enquiry and not the investigation. If in the enquiry, facts disclose commission of an offence, it is then the question of police noticing an offence occurs and leads to their statutory obligation of doing investigation into such cognizable offence. What is held in a case of man missing or in a case of a dead body being merely noticed is a matter of enquiry and is not investigation. These principles have been so vividly laid down by their Lordships in Monoj Kumar Sharma V. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 9 SCC 1 . This court finds that Ex.P1 man missing written information was not disclosing any cognizable offence. When it has not disclosed any cognizable offence there was no question of any investigation by police. Merely because police entered this information in their FIR register, it does not alter its legal character. The learned trial judge did not bestow adequate attention in this regard and that failure led to the impugned mistake. 10. We are now concerned with the next information filed by PW.1. The question now is whether it could be exhibited in evidence by prosecution or not. In the opinion of the learned trial judge, it is hit by sections 161 and 162 CrPC and therefore it could not be exhibited in evidence. It is not in dispute that if this written information falls within the ambit of sections 161 and 162 CrPC, it could not be admitted in evidence. In the opinion of the learned trial judge, it is hit by sections 161 and 162 CrPC and therefore it could not be exhibited in evidence. It is not in dispute that if this written information falls within the ambit of sections 161 and 162 CrPC, it could not be admitted in evidence. However, the contention raised in this revision is that it does not fall within the scope of the above stated provisions and therefore it could be admitted in evidence. Learned counsel for respondent submits that this court may permit this document to be marked while the investigating officer gives his evidence in court. Be that as it may. Without acting upon such concession of the learned counsel, this court shall decide the legal question raised here. 11. A reading of the written information dated 30.09.2013 is the one that indicates locating a dead body with the facts such as face being covered with a plaster and found at a place that does not belong to the dead body and was found with missing of gold articles. The written information does indicate facts and circumstances giving rise to possibility of occurrence of a cognizable offence. The way in which the dead body was lying makes it crystal clear that unnatural death occurred. A man dying unnaturally and his dead body being found in the neighbour’s property surely allows the police to take cognizance that there is a cognizable offence. The investigating officer therefore brought in sections 302 and 201 of IPC and did his investigation and laid the charge sheet. Thus, it was after receiving this written information on 30.09.2013, the SHO found it to be disclosing cognizable offences. Therefore, it was this document which was supposed to be entered in the register prescribed by the state government for the purpose of section 154 CrPC. One has to notice that all other information made orally or in writing after commencement of the investigation will be statements falling under sections 161 and 162 CrPC. In the case at hand, the written information lodged on 29.09.2013 since did not disclose any cognizable offence though nothing was done by police thereafter, what all that they could have done was only enquiry and not the investigation for the simple reason that there was no offence noticed by the person and noticed by the police. In the case at hand, the written information lodged on 29.09.2013 since did not disclose any cognizable offence though nothing was done by police thereafter, what all that they could have done was only enquiry and not the investigation for the simple reason that there was no offence noticed by the person and noticed by the police. It is for the first time, the investigating agency received written information about a cognizable offence on 30.09.2013. Thus, it cannot be said that this information lodged by PW.1 to the police is one filed during the course of investigation. Therefore, it was out of the ambit of principles laid down in sections 161 and 162 CrPC. It may be made clear that if the information lodged in the first instance itself discloses certain facts amounting to a cognizable offence falling within the purview of certain penal provisions and subsequently some person or any other person files anther written information disclosing some more additional facts attracting some more penal provisions or showing allegations as against some more persons other than whose names were mentioned in the earlier information, then the information lodged subsequently would be hit by sections 161 and 162 CrPC as one could notice from the bare reading of the provisions of the statute and the principles laid down by their Lordships in T.T.Antony V. State of Kerala, 2001 6 SCC 181 . It is in the light of these principles, this court holds that learned trial judge ought to have spent a little more time before he took his decision. However, by his order, he dismissed a document which it ought to have allowed. This error prejudices the prosecution. This error is against the law. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. 12. In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed. Learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge shall permit PW.1 to be tendered for evidence and the prosecution needs to exhibit the written information dated 30.09.2013 and the learned trial judge shall take this evidence and thereafter proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible within three months from the date of this order.